NAJMUNBI Vs. HAFIZA BI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these Second Appeals arise out of Judgment and Order passed by the Additional District Judge, Panaji dated 27/11/1992 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 16 of 1988. The Appellant in Second Appeal No. 5 of 1993 is the Original Defendant and the Appellants in Second Appeal No. 33 of 1993 are the heirs of the Original Plaintiffs. For the sake of convenience the parties shall be referred to as Plaintiffs and Defendants. The Plaintiff had filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division at Panaji in Civil Suit No. 346/78/D in which he sought a declaration that he is an absolute owner of the suit premises and he also prayed for a decree of eviction against the Defendants. He also claimed for a decree of eviction, on the ground that he is the owner in respect of the suit premises. The Defendant No.1 despite allegations made by the Plaintiff claimed that he is the owner of the property. The trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the Plaintiff. Against the said Judgment and Order an Appeal was filed by the Plaintiff in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Panaji, who partly allowed the Appeal to a limited extent of declaring that the suit restaurant or suit business belonged to the family of the deceased Appellant and Respondents/Defendants and, therefore, the Defendants were not entitled to claim exclusive rights to the property. Against the said Judgment and Order the Original Defendants filed Second Appeal No. 5 of 1993. The Second Appeal was admitted on 11/6/1993 and substantial questions of law framed in para 12 were formulated by the Court which read as under:�

(2.) SECOND Appeal No. 33 of 1993 was filed by the Plaintiff which was admitted on 3/9/1993 and the following order was passed "this being a companion Appeal to another which is already admitted, this Appeal is also admitted to be heard on substantial questions set out at (a), (b) and (c) in para 6. Tag with Section Appeal No. 5 of 1993. Grounds in para 6(a), (b) and (c) are as under:

(3.) IT is the case of the Plaintiff that he was assisting his father in the said business since the financial condition of the Plaintiff's father was not good. Further it was the case of the Plaintiff that the premises in the said restaurant was leased in the name of the Plaintiff by his former owner by Deed dated 31/5/1948 which was renewed in the name of the Plaintiff from year to year and the last renewal took place in August, 1969 for a period of three years. This is however denied by the Defendants and it is alleged that the suit premises was initially leased in the name of the Plaintiff for the sale of convenience as the Plaintiff was a Government servant and for the purpose of security the landlord had transferred the Lease Deed in the name of the Plaintiff.